Monday, November 24, 2014

Who Won Europe?

BRUSSELS – The fight over who will be the European Commission’s next president is heating up. Several European Union leaders were recently spotted in a small rowboat on a Swedish lake, reportedly scheming against the frontrunner, and British Prime Minister David Cameron has launched a public campaign to reassert the right of EU member states’ governments to decide who will occupy the EU’s executive arm.

The process of choosing the Commission’s president appears to be a conflict between the voice of the people, as expressed in the results of last month’s European Parliament election, and backroom deal-making by governments. But reality is more complex, and the genuine democratic mandate did not go to the person who claims to have “won” the election.

In the run-up to the election, the major European party “families” (there are no pan-European parties, only loose alliances of national parties) each nominated a Spitzenkandidat as their choice for President of the European Commission. The center-right European People’s Party, which gained a narrow plurality of 221 seats in the 751-seat parliament, has claimed victory in the election; and many others, including socialists, greens, and liberals, concur that the EPP’s Spitzenkandidat, Jean-Claude Juncker, has a moral right to be selected as President of the Commission.

In fact, though the EPP won 29% of the seats, versus 24% for the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), the S&D can claim victory. After all, its affiliated parties at the national level won a greater number of votes – a combined total of 40 million, compared to 39.9 million for parties affiliated with the EPP. The difference is small, but there can be no doubt that the S&D won the popular vote (24.4% to 23.8%).

Though the election system is purely proportional and the S&D won the popular vote, the reason that it ended up with fewer seats is simple: its affiliated parties won relatively more votes in the larger countries, where it “costs” more voters to gain a single seat. Conversely, the EPP performed relatively better in small countries, where the vote cost per seat is much lower.

The most extreme example is Luxembourg, Juncker’s home country, where the EPP received almost 38% of the popular vote, versus 11% for the S&D – a difference, in absolute terms, of only about 52,000. But the EPP obtained two more MEPs than the S&D, which implies a per seat cost of roughly 26,000 votes.

The other extreme is Italy, where the S&D won 41% of the votes, versus 22% for the EPP. In absolute terms, the difference was more than five million votes, but the S&D won only 14 more MEPs than the EPP. In Italy, the S&D needed about 370,000 voters to gain one MEP, more than 14 times as many as the EPP needed in Luxembourg.

The EPP’s “victory” was thus due mainly to the fact that the ratio of voters per MEP varies greatly across countries. A single vote in Italy (and in other large countries) is worth much less than a vote in smaller countries. The German Constitutional Court recently relied on this fact in a controversial decision striking down the 3% electoral threshold for parties to gain European Parliament seats in Germany (the small far-right National Democratic Party picked up one seat in the European Parliament as a result).

The German court’s rationale was that the European Parliament election is not a true election, because the principle of “one person, one vote” is not respected. This is not only a problem from the standpoint of democratic principles; the results of the recent election have shown the extent to which it can influence political outcomes. Juncker came out ahead in the MEP count for only one reason: he obtained his votes in small countries, and votes are de facto weighted by country size.

Thus, the claim that the European Parliament directly represents Europe’s people and that the people have given the EPP’s candidate a direct popular mandate that the member states’ representatives in the European Council should respect rings hollow. The S&D obtained more votes, giving its Spitzenkandidat, Martin Schulz, a claim to greater democratic legitimacy.

  • Contact us to secure rights


  • Hide Comments Hide Comments Read Comments (4)

    Please login or register to post a comment

    1. Commentedj. von Hettlingen

      Mr. Gros asks: "Who won Europe"? The European Parliament election is history! What lies ahead is a significant power struggle between candidates, who want to run Europe. Backstage there's a tug of war between heads of member-states, who are going to decide, who should run Europe. EU-critics say this wheeling and dealing pits national leaders and parliaments against European ones.
      The issue of, who should elect the EU president proves to be even more devisive and threatens to split the EU this week. There are those who believe the decision should be taken by the European Parliament which is empowered by the peoples of Europe. Others argue only national leaders have the democratic legitimacy to pick the right man or woman to become the highest EU official.
      As David Cameron is a vocal opponent of the "Spitzenkandidat", Jean-Claude Juncker, it could lead to Britain leaving the EU, should he fail to achieve his goal. He is conducting a witch-hunt against Juncker, because he doubts, if the former Luxembourgian prime minister is the right man to be the top Eurocrat and to lead reform in Brussels. A classic EU insider, with a deep knowledge of Europe's rules, Juncker is Angela Merkel's favoured candidate - a man devoted to further European integration. He is also someone, who prefers the secret, early-hours deal-making to the role of open persuader.
      Juncker's supporters want to boost the influence of the European Parliament and believe his claim to the top job rests on democracy. He hails from the the biggest bloc in the European Parliament, the European People's Party, which brings together centre-right parties from across the EU, yet not the Conservatives). He claims a mandate after a series of televised presidential debates. Yet Cameron said it would be dangerous to give the European Parliament too much power, as it would undermine democracy back home in the member states. The German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe had warned against the problems that the democratic principles of the European Parliament pose.
      Martin Schulz, a candidate of the Socialists, sees this as part of a wider struggle to boost the influence of the European Parliament. Yet many fear, if Juncker becomes President of the EU Commission it will represent a power shift away from national governments.

    2. CommentedVal Samonis

      The truly important question is: WHO LOST EUROPE, and, more importantly, IS THERE ANYBODY WHO CAN SAVE EUROPE FROM THE GREAT DEPRESSION 2 AND WARS?

      Val Samonis

    3. CommentedFrancesco Di Comite

      Just a clarification: I undersstood that Juncker's parties got almost 45.000.000 votes and the parties supporting Schultz just above 40.000.000. (see Is it not correct? Where can we find an official source on the issue?

    4. CommentedMareike Kleine

      Interesting post, but ultimately not what the debate is about. It's a power play between the EP and the European Council on the one hand, and between the UK and Germany on the other.